4 ms·

Would've been nice if they hadn't lied about it during the livestream though, but i guess "everybody didn't even know" was exactly the point of why they did tha

Would've been nice if they hadn't lied about it during the livestream though, but i guess "everybody didn't even know" was exactly the point of why they did that. Big departure from their earlier modus operandi as well. Wonder if they'll also upload a full video of that crash like with their earlier crashes or whether they've changed that behavior too.

greglindahl 9y ago
SpaceX has often not released droneship crash footage until quite a while later. The recent "How not to land an orbital rocket" crash compilation contained a lot of footage SpaceX had not released before. So there's nothing new about this choice of coverage.
- Mithaldu 9y ago
  1. It is quite a while later. 2. Them lying live on stream with the evidence of the lie clearly visible is new.
  - greglindahl 9y ago
    1. The footage released in the "How not to land an Orbital Rocket" includes previously unseen footage from more than a year before the release of the video. FH's launch was last month. 2. Uh, no. You don't know what they knew, you're guessing, and then calling them liars. I think it's dodgy, but I know I don't know enough to call anyone a liar.
    - Mithaldu 9y ago
      Oooh, so you're simply unaware and your bias prompts you to assume i'm making shit up. Here, let me fix that. Watch exactly one minute after this timestamp, pay attention to the screen at the right edge of the video, in the middle: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wbSwFU6tY1c&t=30m33s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wbSwFU6tY1c&t=30m33s Drone ship feed static for a while, then smoke on deck clears, no core visible, deck empty. Both go "oh." and after a pause: "we're waiting to hear what happens. [...] we'll let you know as soon as we find out" and "we'll [...] know [...] whether it's standing". It is clear during all of this that they're looking at the same video feed as is in the background, because the timing of their reactions is exactly in synch. They saw it didn't land, they found out immediately and didn't let "us" know. Instead they claimed it might be possible it is standing despite seeing the empty deck. PS: You could've asked instead of engaging in cheer pressure.
      - greglindahl 9y ago
        I already watched that video last month, and it looked to me like the scene froze as it often does, at that exact point, right before the final part of a landing. Now that I've seen the super-slow-mo version, I can see that I jumped to the wrong conclusion. However, again, I have no idea what the hosts were thinking, and your "liar" theory involves reading their minds.
        Mithaldu 9y ago
        Or, you know, a bare modicum of common sense.
      - jcims 9y ago
        This is excessively hostile and conspiratorial IMHO. The folks on camera are completely at the mercy of those feeding information to them, and it seems unlikely that there was some master plan to suppress that information or they would have cut the feed completely.
      - manicdee 9y ago
        This was a completely new failure mode for ASDS landings. Often we see blue sky, then the video feed freezes (“satellite antenna gets shaken too much” is the official reason) then the feed resumes with a booster nonchalantly appearing through the smoke. Or we get a cut, then nothing, then a reveal days or years later about what really happened. Booster missed barge, tried to compensate by tilting st extreme angle, collides with barge. Booster lands, but has too much rotstional momentum, crushes landing leg, tips over a explodes. Booster lands, landing leg fails to lock, booster tips over and explodes. Booster almost lands, runs out of fuel a few metres above the deck, collapses the landing gear and explodes. Looking through the smoke this time, anyone watching that feed for the first time would have been waiting for either a standing booster or a pile of debris. But we saw neither. They would then have been advised to cut the commentary and speculation to return to the rest of the mission. So yes, they were “lying” in that they wanted to talk about what they saw (or didn’t see) but kept talking about the rest of the mission in progress. I can understand that you want to feel outrage, but in this instance I don’t think there’s any justification at all.

greglindahl 9y ago

SpaceX has often not released droneship crash footage until quite a while later. The recent "How not to land an orbital rocket" crash compilation contained a lot of footage SpaceX had not released before. So there's nothing new about this choice of coverage.

Mithaldu 9y ago
1. It is quite a while later. 2. Them lying live on stream with the evidence of the lie clearly visible is new.
- greglindahl 9y ago
  1. The footage released in the "How not to land an Orbital Rocket" includes previously unseen footage from more than a year before the release of the video. FH's launch was last month. 2. Uh, no. You don't know what they knew, you're guessing, and then calling them liars. I think it's dodgy, but I know I don't know enough to call anyone a liar.
  - Mithaldu 9y ago
    Oooh, so you're simply unaware and your bias prompts you to assume i'm making shit up. Here, let me fix that. Watch exactly one minute after this timestamp, pay attention to the screen at the right edge of the video, in the middle: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wbSwFU6tY1c&t=30m33s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wbSwFU6tY1c&t=30m33s Drone ship feed static for a while, then smoke on deck clears, no core visible, deck empty. Both go "oh." and after a pause: "we're waiting to hear what happens. [...] we'll let you know as soon as we find out" and "we'll [...] know [...] whether it's standing". It is clear during all of this that they're looking at the same video feed as is in the background, because the timing of their reactions is exactly in synch. They saw it didn't land, they found out immediately and didn't let "us" know. Instead they claimed it might be possible it is standing despite seeing the empty deck. PS: You could've asked instead of engaging in cheer pressure.
    - greglindahl 9y ago
      I already watched that video last month, and it looked to me like the scene froze as it often does, at that exact point, right before the final part of a landing. Now that I've seen the super-slow-mo version, I can see that I jumped to the wrong conclusion. However, again, I have no idea what the hosts were thinking, and your "liar" theory involves reading their minds.
      - Mithaldu 9y ago
        Or, you know, a bare modicum of common sense.
    - jcims 9y ago
      This is excessively hostile and conspiratorial IMHO. The folks on camera are completely at the mercy of those feeding information to them, and it seems unlikely that there was some master plan to suppress that information or they would have cut the feed completely.
    - manicdee 9y ago
      This was a completely new failure mode for ASDS landings. Often we see blue sky, then the video feed freezes (“satellite antenna gets shaken too much” is the official reason) then the feed resumes with a booster nonchalantly appearing through the smoke. Or we get a cut, then nothing, then a reveal days or years later about what really happened. Booster missed barge, tried to compensate by tilting st extreme angle, collides with barge. Booster lands, but has too much rotstional momentum, crushes landing leg, tips over a explodes. Booster lands, landing leg fails to lock, booster tips over and explodes. Booster almost lands, runs out of fuel a few metres above the deck, collapses the landing gear and explodes. Looking through the smoke this time, anyone watching that feed for the first time would have been waiting for either a standing booster or a pile of debris. But we saw neither. They would then have been advised to cut the commentary and speculation to return to the rest of the mission. So yes, they were “lying” in that they wanted to talk about what they saw (or didn’t see) but kept talking about the rest of the mission in progress. I can understand that you want to feel outrage, but in this instance I don’t think there’s any justification at all.